Phones ON Phones OFF ?

[2R]

If it has an on off switch,Please turn it off for take off and landing.

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/turning- ... oola.video

[sakism]

I totally agree that cell phones should be off for take-off and landing. The problem, as with so much nowadays, is that things have gone to the extreme.

For example, why must I turn my eBook off for take-off and landing?

I guess I should be thankful that I don't have to turn off my digital watch....

(And in that video they talked about interference with GPS signals - if that is the case, shouldn't they be off for the entire flight?)

[gustind]

A multi million dollar airplane with navigation instruments that have gone "haywire" by a $650 phone?

[ahramin]

I don't see how losing the compass gets you several miles off track. There's more to that RJ story.

[CID]

And here come all the armchair engineers who know better than anyone else and feel that it's BS to be told to shut of their stuff in case of interference.

The truth of the matter is that consumer electronics very much do have potential to interfere with aircraft systems. Thinks like watches are generally OK since they consume very little power and historically they have proven (in practice and theory) to be quite benign. It's tougher with larger electrical gizmos and those that radiate significant amounts of power.

WLAN devices can potentially interfere but the risk is low. Cell phones are brutal. They put out 3 to 4 watts in search mode on various frequencies and have been proven to interfere if the conditions are just right.

Laptop computers and tablets and yes even eReaders use clocks running at various frequencies that have the potential to interfere, and remember these are non-controlled devices. Did the last repairman that had it open put back all the shields?

Why not the entire flight? That's a no-brainer. It's prudent to restrict operation of devices that can potentially interfere but it's a safe compromise to restrict them during the most critical phases of flight. That's take-off and landing. Flight crew can also tell everyone to turn stuff off in any other phase if they are encountering issues in the cockpit and they suspect interference from portable devices.

One must also consider that not all landings are in severe clear weather during daylight with no winds and no failures and perfectly healthy non-fatigued pilots Acceptable probability rates of failures (or misleading due to navigation) are measured in one occurrence in millions and billions of flight hours. As you shrug and play with your phone during landing can you honestly say that the chances of your phone interfering with the aircraft is a chance in a billion? I didn't think so.

Therefore it is not only prudent by mandatory that the aviation authorities impose restrictions with a bias towards "rather safe than sorry".

So shut you damn gizmos off when you're told.

[Genetk44]

I always find it interesting/amazing how so many people can't seem to go for more than 30 seconds without checking their email or texts.....what the f**k is wrong with them.10 years ago most people didnt even own these types of devices and 20 years ago they were virtually non-existant.....and yet now these morons can't bear to be without them for just 10 minutes...sheer idiocy.

[complexintentions]

If cell phones are "brutal" why are they not only allowed but encouraged on our flights? And whether or not they're supposed to be off during approach and landing, I can attest that there are absolutely, for certain, multiple phones on, EVERY FLIGHT, ALL FLIGHT. Including, often, the flight deck crews own phones. Multiplied by hundreds of flights a day, every day. In one airline. In over 20 years of flying I haven't seen so much as even a hint of a blip of a sign of nav system issues.

http://www.emirates.com/english/flying/ ... ected.aspx

Could a consumer electronic device cause a problem? Sure. Do I consider it a threat statistically worth considering for even a millisecond, weighed against all other risks to flight safety?

No.

[2.5milefinal]

If it is so much of a threat to aviation safety why even allow them on board.
Just last month (yet again) I had my tooth paste and shampoo taken away from me by CATSA because it was considered a threat.
That being said...
I do agree Genetk44 it is sheer idiocy. How people can not seem to go without these things.
AS far as safety goes my all time favorite is how fast the seat belts come off after landing.

[2R]

Huge PDF file so i will just post the link.
http://gpsinformation.net/airgps/gsm_intf1.pdf

The only flaw in the study was they did not turn on 120 phones at the same time.My wag is that might put you more than one dot off on approach and result in a CFIT if you follow the bent radio beam on approach or you might go missed burning more fuel.It is not about just one phone it is the collective power of hundreds of devices transmitting a louder interference than just my little phone.

[Expat]

I was on a bicycle in the gym the other day. I happen to be looking at my pulse. Suddenly it jumped to 350. I couldn't believe it. Sure enough, somebody had put his jacket on a hook not far, may be half a meter, and the phone in his pocket started to ring. I also noticed that if my phone is on the desk, where is my laptop, the computer will start to make noises, just before the phone rings.
So there are interferences. I would assume that on board a large plane, the antennas and wiring are not all in the front, but some may run alongside the cabin. So the distance in some cases may be very small, and may allow interferences.

[frosti]

There should be a cut and dry standard, either allow phones to be ON on board or have them turned off in the bag prior to boarding. Because of these grey zones idiots will take advantage of it and not follow the airlines rules.

[CID]

I won't bother going in to a huge technical discussion here because we know how that goes in the AvCanada forum but I will say that it's a bit pathetic that so-called aviation professional are on the same bandwagon as the uninformed general flying public when it comes to PEDs.

Check out this recent crash video. At around the 45 second mark, and later on, you will hear interference from a cell phone on the radio in the vehicle. So.....one little cell phone couldn't possibly interfere right?

http://youtu.be/-MB9JDBe4wA

[Colonel Sanders]

CID: are you implying that a cell phone brought down that 747?!

[xsbank]

CID, the old-technology cell phones put out 3 or 4 watts but an iPhone 4S puts out at most, 17 dbm. 20 dbm is equal to 0.1 watts, which is a tiny amount of power. The HF radio puts out 25 or so watts and the antenna is in the tail. The reason people pay 100s of thousands for satellite phones in their business jets is because cells are virtually useless in the air.

The real reason that cell phones must be shut off is because people are stupid - they are easily distracted by their phones and will not follow directions.

[Canoehead]

Yes people are stupid and easily distracted, however two points:

First, that sound that CID points out in the video at :45 is one I've heard countless times in my headset, and it's pretty irritating.

Second, cell phones interfere with certain aspects of the intercom system on the aircraft I fly. If the fwd F/A's handset doesn't have the visible 3" x 2" shield attached to it, cell phone use after landing is not permitted.

People don't just make this stuff up.

[Flying Low]

I have heard the "clicks" on my computer speakers when my iphone is on the desk nearby. I have heard those same clicks in my headset in flight on several occasions. On one occasion while on approach to YYZ I heard the clicks in my headset and the G/S indicator disappeared. This happened three or four times on the approach and each time the G/S indicator vanished. Luckily it was VFR and I continued the approach visually... And no, it wasn't my phone...I checked

Can phones interfere? Yes...without a doubt. It just doesn't happen very often.

[trey kule]

Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars airlines collectively spend each year to try and make flight as safe as possible, people seem to try their best to thwart the system.

Sit in cattle class some day. As the plane touches down there is the gentle squeal of tires on pavement , and then a micro second later, a symphony of a 100 seat belts being unbuckled, because no one can understand what the consequence of a ground accident would result in. The FA,s, for the most part do nothing. There may be some announcements for connecting Pax, picking up baggage etc..it is hard to tell with the sounds of cell phones powering up and people sharing their arrival plans with everyone within a six row radius. An emergency announcement would be a waste.
Did I mention the FA's...totally ignore this activity?

By the time the plane is within about 400 meters of the gate we have two hundred people all standing in the aisle (even though it will be another 10 mins until the doors are opened), opening the overhead bins...talking on their cell phones......
And this will all continue until the day one or two aircraft have to make a very quick stop...then we will see things like seat belt open warning signs like we have in cars....though my personal preference would be for the head FA to have A 6000 volt cattle prod.

As to this

In one airline. In over 20 years of flying I haven't seen so much as even a hint of a blip of a sign of nav system issues

Well, from my perspective, I dont want to be flying an approach where you are proved wrong by the interduction of a new piece of technology. It is not an onerous burden for pax to be denied the use of their cell phones for a few minutes, if for no other reason then the announcements can be heard.

[MUSKEG]

TK. Not sure where you are but your post is comical. You do not hear the seat belts come off a split second after touchdown. You do not see 200 people standing before the A/C stops. 3 seconds after yes. There are places where the behavior of pax is quite different (Africa). When you state lies it plants the logic that the rest of your comments are also untrue. So what are we to believe?

[Lotro]

Mythbusters says "Busted"

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythb ... uments.htm

Just sayin'.

It was a good episode too!

[photofly]

Does TC itself have a rule about cellphone use? It's certainly allowed for non 70x operations. Otherwise I thought it was left up to individual airlines to set a policy.

This is a good reminder why seatbelts are a good idea, on the ground:

[trey kule]

Muskie.

My entire post was meant tongue in cheek....i guess I should have tweeted it so everyone would know what I was thinking

[complexintentions]

trey, I'm not saying that it's a good idea to test the resilience of aircraft systems versus random consumer electronics. I'm saying that in doing my own personal risk analysis, cell phone (or mobile phone, as the vast majority of the world knows them) usage ranks very, very low on my list of concerns relative to other threats to flight safety. As I said, on Emirates flights equipped with Aeromobile, pax are not only allowed but encouraged to use their phones to call/text. But if this is something that people find very alarming, I certainly wouldn't prevent them from doing their best to root out those pax who forget/refuse to turn them off and make them do so, if that's the policy. Whatever makes one feel safe, I say go for it. But it's nothing more than theatre. Kind of like the airport security screening. Makes the uneducated public feel more "safe". Quantifiable return on flight safety? Not so much.

But citing the Bagram 747F crash as some sort of evidence is just ridiculous. How the hell is the mobile phone in the observing vehicle even remotely connected to the aircraft, which from preliminary accounts had a load shift, causing an unrecoverable stall?! Might as well blame the dog in the vehicle as well while you're at it.

[CID]

CID: are you implying that a cell phone brought down that 747?!

Absolutely not. I should have been more clear. I didn't think anyone would make that connection. It was just a recent video that many of us have seen and I remembered hearing the cell phone interference. That airplane was likely brought down by a load shift. The FAA has already made some comments in that direction. They recently released a Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) reminding operators of "the potential safety impact of carrying and restraining heavy vehicle special cargo loads.

xsbank, I think you're talking about the WIFI. 20dBm is the maximum power permitted for the WIFI standard(s). The cellular transmitter puts out more. For multi-mode modern phones it can range between around a quarter of a watt to 2 watts (about 33 dBm) in search. Older phones can be 3 watts. Let's keep in mind that power doubles every 3 dBm.

Cell phone towers are optimized for ground communications and cell phones are not generally licensed for airborne use. The FCC (not the FAA) in the US prohibits cell phone use specifically in aircraft so the FAA doesn't even need to weigh in. They won't even allow nano-cells or pico-cells in aircraft.

Besides that, the FAA and Transport Canada and most other aviation authorities prohibit the use of intentional radiators (transmitters) on board aircraft. It's only through special authority that WIFI is allowed on some airplanes and that's only after extensive testing. So even if the FCC didn't prohibit cell phones, the FAA would under the operating rules.

The power output of HF radios can be substantially more than 25 watts and typically is. I guess you don't know about airline or large aircraft HF systems. The good old 618T puts out 400 watts AM. Most airline/business VHF puts out 25 or 50 watts and most HFs put out significantly more than that.

Systems designers are well aware of the frequencies that are normally used in aircraft and design around that. Consumer electronics are not designed with aircraft in mind nor are there sufficient controls over the repair of those devices to prevent them from being altered or repaired incorrectly in a manner in which they may interfere.

Plus, I recommend you check out the plethora of frequencies that multi-mode cell phones operate on and the power emitted in the search mode. Its a real eye opener.

Speaking of satcoms, did you know that Iridium was originally intended for ground use and that it is so close to GPS frequencies that special GPS antennas must be installed in the aircraft when you put in an Iridium satcom? The Inmarsat SATCOM systems don't have that problem but they can be much more expensive to install and operate than Iridium.

[CID]

As I said, on Emirates flights equipped with Aeromobile, pax are not only allowed but encouraged to use their phones to call/text.

That's right but do you understand the technology and the difference between a phone in "search" mode and one being forced to minimum power?

They use "pico-cell" technology to make sure the phones never emit high level signals while under the influence of the pico-cell. And of course they encourage you to use it. They are very expensive to install and maintain and they want your pound of flesh.

Pico-cells are not allowed to be used in US airspace so you won't see them on any American airlines any time soon but Canada has no such prohibition.

Again, if they tell to turn it off....DO IT.

[Beefitarian]

It's kind of funny people will complain, "Why can't I use my phone? It must not be as powerful as that guy's huge laptop." totally ignoring the fact they can talk on the thing miles from a cellular tower, while most of the time we can't get wifi in our yard.